Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions that cause a processor to receive a set of radio frequency (RF) signals from an atmosphere; suppress RF signal level propagating through upper side-lobes of a base station antenna from the set of RF signals received; transmit the filtered set of RF signals to one or more far end cell sites” in lines 1-6. The claim is contradictory with the specification (para [0078] and [0079]) which recite that the steps of “receive a set of radio frequency (RF) signals from an atmosphere; suppress RF signal level propagating through upper side-lobes of a base station antenna from the set of RF signals received; transmit the filtered set of RF signals to one or more far end cell sites” are achieved by an antenna canopy without any intervention by the processor. Examiner cannot determine whether the steps of receiving and suppressing the RF signals by the processor or by the antenna canopy. Clarification/correction required. For examination purposes, the limitation will not be considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (EP 3 965 306 A1), hereinafter Yang. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 13, Yang (Figure 2) teaches a user equipment, wherein said user equipment comprising a processor (claim 31); a memory (claim 31); a network antenna in said user equipment (UE), wherein said network antenna is configured to establish a communication channel by receiving one or more signals from one or more cell sites (base station) to said UE, wherein said one or more cell sites are victim cells or aggressor cells; a receiver in said user equipment, wherein said receiver is configured to adapt filtered signals coming from optimized cells, wherein said optimization is based on filtration of interference signals; and a transmitter, configured for uplink transmission from said user equipment, wherein said uplink transmission is an optimized signal transmission.
Regarding claim 14, Yang (para [0120]) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions that cause a processor to detect an antenna electrical and main lobe radiation pattern of the suppressed set of RF signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (CN 114760717A), hereinafter Zhao, in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao (Figure 3) teaches a system for reducing network self-interference, said system comprising:
an antenna canopy, said antenna canopy mounted on top of a base station antenna for receiving and transmitting a set of radio frequency (RF) signals to one or more far end cell sites (para [0021] and [0065]);
one or more computing devices, said one or more computing devices operatively coupled to one or more processors, said one or more processors operatively coupled to the antenna through a network, wherein the one or more processors is further coupled with a memory, the memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to:
receive, by an antenna canopy, the set of RF signals from the atmosphere (para [0021] and [0065]);
suppress, by the antenna canopy, RF signal level propagating through upper side-lobes of the base station antenna from the set of RF signals received (para [0021] and [0065]);
transmit, the filtered set of RF signals to the to one or more far end cell sites (para [0021] and [0065]).
Zhao does not explicitly mention that the system is configured to detect, by one or more processors, an antenna electrical and main lobe radiation pattern of the suppressed set of RF signals.
Yang (para [0120]) teaches a system for reducing network self-interference wherein one or more processors is configured to detect an antenna electrical and main lobe radiation pattern of the suppressed set of RF signals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the one or more processors of Zhao’s system to detect an antenna electrical and main lobe radiation pattern of the suppressed set of RF signals, as taught by Yang, doing so would assist in identifying spatial nulls and isolate low-level interference thus enables interference tracking and multipath mitigation.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, it would have been an obvious matter of design to configure the system to reduce upper and grating lobes of the base station antenna to prevent an amount of an RF signal entering into a duct region of the atmosphere without degradation in the Antenna Electrical and Main lobe radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the system to identify, by the one or more processors, one or more aggressor cells and one or more victim cells in order to reduce inter-cell interference.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the system to alleviate interference in the one or more aggressor cells in order to prevent data loss and retransmissions thus improving signal quality.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the system to reduce the number of victim cells based on the alleviation of interference in the one or more aggressor cells without affecting traffic and user throughput in order to lower interference and reduces retransmissions which results in improved spectral efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the system to reduce a Tropospheric interference permanently in order to achieve higher data throughput.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights